State v. Barela , 2021 NMSC 001 ( 2020 )

Office of the Director New Mexico
12:29:13 2021.01.25 Compilation
'00'07- Commission
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Opinion Number: 2021-NMSC-001Filing Date: November 16, 2020
No. S-1-SC-37301
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMES EDWARD BARELA,
Defendant-Petitioner.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI
James Waylon Counts, District Judge
Released for Publication January 26, 2021.
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
William A. O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Petitioner
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Respondent
OPINION
BACON, Justice.
{1} This case asks us to decide whether a sentence can be enhanced under the
Habitual Offender Act, 1 NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-17 (2003) (“Habitual offenders;
alteration of basic sentence”), when a defendant is convicted of felony battery against a
1Although New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 does not specify a legislative act, New Mexico case law
has referred to NMSA 1978, §§ 31-18-17 to -20 (1977, as amended through 2003) as “the Habitual
Offender Act.” See, e.g., Vallejos v. Marquez, 2008-NMSC-003, ¶ 1, 143 N.M. 357, 176 P.3d 1089. This
opinion uses “Habitual Offender Act” to refer to NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-17 (2003).
household member, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-17(A) (2008). Concluding
that the Habitual Offender Act can be applied when a defendant is convicted of felony
battery against a household member, we affirm Defendant James Barela’s sentence.
This conclusion is premised on two factors. First, the plain language of Sections 30-3-
17(A) and 31-18-17 is unambiguous and does not preclude both statutes from operating
simultaneously. Second, because felony battery against a household member and
felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) are distinguishable, we decline to apply the
reasoning of State v. Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, 123 N.M. 14, 933 P.2d 223.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} Defendant was convicted of felony battery against a household member after
battering the mother of his child and other crimes. Prior to trial, Defendant pleaded
guilty to battery against a household member and proceeded to sentencing. As this
was Defendant’s third conviction of battery against a household member, the district
court enhanced his conviction to a fourth-degree felony under Section 30-3-17(A).
Section 30-3-17(A) states, in pertinent part, that “[w]hoever commits three offenses of
battery against a household member . . . when the household member is . . . a co-
parent of a child . . . is guilty of a fourth-degree felony.” Additionally, as Defendant had
previously been convicted of a separate felony, the district court enhanced his sentence
by one year under the Habitual Offender Act. The Habitual Offender Act generally
provides that upon conviction of a noncapital felony, a defendant’s sentence shall be
increased by one year when that defendant has one prior felony conviction. Section 31-
18-17(A). Defendant appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals, arguing that
because felony battery against a household member is a felony only by virtue of
multiple convictions—in other words, a self-enhancing felony—it is not subject to further
enhancement under the Habitual Offender Act. State v. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 1,
458 P.3d 501, cert. granted (S-1-SC-37301, Nov. 5, 2018). His appeal was premised
on this Court’s reasoning in Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010. In Anaya, we held that
defendants convicted of felony DWI under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(G) (1993,
amended 2016), also a self-enhancing felony, are not subject to the Habitual Offender
Act. Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, ¶ 33.
{3} Recognizing this holding in Anaya, the Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion,
distinguished felony battery against a household member from felony DWI and held that
the enhanced conviction of felony battery against a household member under Section
30-3-17(A) could serve as an underlying felony under the Habitual Offender Act.
Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶¶ 9-11. In response, Defendant petitioned this Court for
certiorari, which we granted pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA.
{4} Agreeing with the result, but not necessarily the reasoning, we affirm the Court of
Appeals and hold that felony battery against a household member can serve as an
underlying felony for purposes of applying the Habitual Offender Act. This conclusion is
premised on (1) the plain language of the statutes at issue and (2) our rejection of
Defendant’s argument that Anaya’s holding precludes application of the Habitual
Offender Act when one of the underlying convictions is felony battery against a
household member.
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Plain Language of Sections 30-3-17(A) and 31-18-17 Does Not Preclude
Their Simultaneous Application
1. Standard of review
{5} This case presents an issue of statutory construction, which we review de novo.
See State v. Tafoya, 2010-NMSC-019, ¶ 9, 148 N.M. 391, 237 P.3d 693 (“When an
appeal presents an issue of statutory construction, our review is de novo.”). Through
such construction, our duty is to facilitate the intent and purpose of the Legislature.
State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶ 8, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022.
{6} We first look to the language contained within the text of the statute. Id. ¶ 9.
Consistent with the plain meaning rule, when a statute’s language is clear and
unambiguous, we “give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory
interpretation.” State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We do, however, hesitate to apply the
literal interpretation of a statute if such application would lead to results that are “absurd,
unreasonable, or otherwise inappropriate.” Id. ¶ 13. “In considering the statute’s
function in relation to related statutes passed by the Legislature, whenever possible . . .
we must read different legislative enactments as harmonious instead of as contradicting
one another.” Id. (omission in original) (brackets omitted) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
2. Sections 30-3-17(A) and 31-18-17 are unambiguous and can apply
simultaneously
{7} “Battery against a household member,” NMSA 1978, § 30-3-15 (2008), is a
misdemeanor. Section 30-3-17(A) elevates a third offense of battery against a
household member to a fourth-degree felony. Section 30-3-17(A) states, in pertinent
part, that “[w]hoever commits three offenses of battery against a household member . . .
when the household member is a spouse, a former spouse, a co-parent of a child or a
person with whom the offender has had a continuing personal relationship is guilty of a
fourth-degree felony.” Further, any defendant convicted of four or more offenses of
battery against such a household member is guilty of a third-degree felony. Section 30-
3-17(B). The statute is silent on sentencing and instead simply classifies multiple
convictions as two escalated classes of felonies.
{8} The Habitual Offender Act states, in pertinent part, that
[a] person convicted of a noncapital felony in this state whether within the
Criminal Code or the Controlled Substances Act or not who has incurred
one prior felony conviction that was part of a separate transaction or
occurrence is a habitual offender and his basic sentence shall be
increased by one year.
Section 31-18-17(A). The statute clarifies that a “prior felony conviction” is “a conviction
. . . for a prior felony committed within New Mexico whether within the Criminal Code or
not, but not including a conviction for a felony pursuant to the provisions of Section 66-
8-102 [felony DWI].” Section 31-18-17(D)(1) (emphasis added). Therefore, at
sentencing for a felony conviction, the Habitual Offender Act “shall be” applied to a
defendant with a prior felony conviction as long as that conviction is not a felony DWI.
See § 31-18-17(A), (D)(1).
{9} Defendant argues that the Legislature’s silence as to the Habitual Offender Act’s
applicability to felony battery against a household member is conclusive that the
Legislature did not intend for the Habitual Offender Act to apply. Because the
Legislature enacted the felony battery against a household member statute in 2008,
more than ten years after Anaya was decided, Defendant claims that the Legislature’s
silence must have been intentional. In support of this argument, Defendant cites
Aguilera v. Bd. of Educ. of Hatch Valley Schs., 2006-NMSC-015, ¶ 24, 139 N.M. 330,
132 P.3d 587, for the proposition that this Court presumes the Legislature is aware of
existing law of the appellate courts. Presuming the Legislature was aware of Anaya’s
holding when it enacted the felony battery against a household member statute,
Defendant asserts that the Legislature would have explicitly stated its intention for the
Habitual Offender Act to apply.
{10} The State responds that the Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the plain
language reading of both statutes at issue unambiguously resolves the question of
whether the Habitual Offender Act applies to felony battery against a household
member. This resolution, the State asserts, supports application of the Habitual
Offender Act to felony battery against a household member.
{11} The Court of Appeals concluded that “[b]ased on the language in these statutes,”
the district court did not err in enhancing Defendant’s sentence. Barela, 2019-NMCA-
005, ¶ 5. We agree with the Court of Appeals and the State, and we conclude that the
plain language of the statutes does not prohibit Defendant’s sentence enhancement.
{12} We determine, construing the statutes harmoniously, that no conflict exists when
applying both statutes simultaneously. The justification for this conclusion is twofold.
First, the felony battery against a household member statute includes no indication that
the Legislature intended sentencing for felony battery against a household member to
be different from any other felony. If the Legislature intended for convictions of felony
battery against a household member to be treated as misdemeanors at sentencing, the
Legislature would have so specified, in which case enhancing a third conviction of
battery against a household member to a felony would carry less weight than a felony
conviction ordinarily carries. Presumably, the intent of the Legislature was to deter
defendants who continue to commit this same crime by subjecting them to harsher
penalties. See State v. Yparrea, 1992-NMCA-128, ¶¶ 9-10, 114 N.M. 805, 845 P.2d
1259 (recognizing that an increased penalty imposed on a habitual offender under
Section 31-18-17 serves the purpose of deterring repetitive criminal conduct).
Application of the Habitual Offender Act incorporates that objective.
{13} Second, the Habitual Offender Act, in its definition of “prior felony conviction,”
explicitly excludes felony DWI but does not exclude felony battery against a household
member. See § 31-18-17(D)(1). Within the Habitual Offender Act is a clear statement
that it “shall” apply to defendants convicted of a felony who have a prior felony
conviction, except when the prior felony conviction is felony DWI. See § 31-18-17(A),
(D)(1). Presuming the Legislature is aware of existing law, see In re Petition of PNM
Gas Servs., 2000-NMSC-012, ¶ 73, 129 N.M. 1, 1 P.3d 383 (noting our presumption
that the Legislature is aware of existing law when it enacts a statute), it ostensibly would
have likewise excluded felony battery against a household member from the Habitual
Offender Act if it did not intend for these statutes to apply simultaneously.
{14} Although Defendant asks us to apply the rule of lenity, we construe no ambiguity
in the statutes at issue, and therefore the rule of lenity does not apply. See State v.
Hall, 2013-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 294 P.3d 1235 (noting that the rule of lenity applies when
the text of a statute is determined to be ambiguous and, after interpretation, reasonable
doubt persists as to the statute’s applicability).
B. Anaya’s Narrow Holding Applies Specifically to Nonviolent DWI
Convictions and Does Not Prohibit the Habitual Offender Act from Applying
to a Conviction of Felony Battery Against a Household Member
1. Battery against a household member is distinguishable from felony DWI
{15} In Anaya, we held that defendants convicted of felony DWI under Section 66-8-
102(G) (1993, effective Jan. 1, 1994), “a self-enhancing provision,” are not subject to
the Habitual Offender Act. Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, ¶ 33. Both the habitual offender
and felony DWI statutes, the Anaya Court recognized, are silent as to the application of
the Habitual Offender Act when one of the felony convictions is felony DWI. Id. ¶ 31.
As well, the Anaya Court recognized that ambiguity created by the aforementioned
silence was further compounded by the fact that (1) felony DWI is a nonviolent offense,
and (2) Section 66-8-102(G) (1993) contained the term “jail” rather than “prison.”
Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, ¶¶ 29, 33, 34. 2
{16} Concluding that both the habitual offender and felony DWI statutes are
ambiguous as to whether they can apply simultaneously, we applied the rule of lenity.
Id. ¶ 32. In applying the rule of lenity, we held that any ambiguity should be resolved in
favor of the defendant and concluded that the Habitual Offender Act did not apply to
felony DWI. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Because the felony DWI statute self-enhances the penalty
applied upon each subsequent DWI conviction, we determined that it is classified as a
felony for sentencing purposes only and not intended for enhancement under the
Habitual Offender Act. Id. ¶ 33.
2We note that “jail term” persisted in Section 66-8-102(G) for ten years (six years after Anaya) through
multiple statutory revisions until NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(G) (2003) (see 2003 N.M. Laws. Ch. 90, §
3) when the penalty enhancement increased and “term of imprisonment” replaced “jail term” in this and all
subsequent statutory revisions.
{17} Defendant argues that Anaya’s holding prevents the application of the Habitual
Offender Act to felony battery against a household member because felony battery
against a household member, like felony DWI, is a self-enhancing statute. Because the
statute for felony battery against a household member is self-enhancing, Defendant
asks that we apply the rationale of Anaya, which states that felony battery against a
household member is limited to its own “particular enhancement provision.” See Anaya,
1997-NMSC-010, ¶ 33.
{18} The State responds that Defendant “misses critical distinctions” between felony
battery against a household member and felony DWI that render this Court’s holding in
Anaya inapplicable to the instant case. We agree.
{19} We conclude that Anaya is distinguishable from the current case, and thus, does
not preclude application of the Habitual Offender Act to felony battery against a
household member. Two reasons support this conclusion. First, unlike felony DWI,
felony battery against a household member is a violent crime. Cf. id. ¶ 34 (reasoning
that the Habitual Offender Act did not apply to a felony DWI conviction because DWI is
not a crime “of a violent nature”). In fact, battery against a household member
enhances to a felony only when a defendant has repeatedly inflicted violence on the
same definitional subset of individuals. Presumably, the Legislature classified this
behavior as a fourth-degree felony to ensure defendants could be punished more
severely for continuing to batter those within their households. See Yparrea, 1992-
NMCA-128, ¶ 10.
{20} Further, felony DWI is currently subject to its own sentencing scheme. Under
Section 66-8-102(F)-(K), the Legislature has not only classified each successive DWI
conviction as an increasing degree of felony but also has specified within each DWI
conviction the sentence that shall be imposed. No such distinction exists within the
statute for felony battery against a household member. Section 30-3-17(A) simply
states that whoever is convicted of battery against a household member for a third time
is guilty of a fourth-degree felony without specifying sentencing structure. Accordingly,
we presume that the Legislature intended defendants convicted of felony battery against
a household member to be subject to the Habitual Offender Act as it applies to other
convicted felons.
2. Although we reach the same conclusion as the Court of Appeals, we
diverge from its reasoning
{21} The Court of Appeals incorrectly distinguished Anaya from the case at bar and
rested its conclusion on two factors. First, the court discussed how DWI has its own
sentencing scheme within the Motor Vehicle Code, while felony battery against a
household member is codified within the Criminal Code. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 9.
Because the Habitual Offender Act states that it applies to felonies “‘whether within the
Criminal Code or the Controlled Substances Act or not,’” Section 31-18-17(A), the Court
of Appeals interpreted this language as express authorization to apply the Habitual
Offender Act to felonies within the Criminal Code, such as felony battery against a
household member. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 9. We disagree with this reasoning.
{22} While the explicit statutory sentencing scheme for DWI indicates that the
Legislature did not intend the Habitual Offender Act to apply to convictions of felony
DWI, codification of felony battery against a household member within the Criminal
Code is not, alone, a persuasive indicator that the statute is subject to the Habitual
Offender Act. Section 31-18-17(A) applies to “[a] person convicted of a noncapital
felony in this state whether within the Criminal Code or the Controlled Substances Act
or not[.]” As explained by Judge Vargas in her dissent, “[b]y its plain language,
however, Section 31-18-17 applies to any noncapital felony, regardless of where it is
found in our statutes—whether ‘within the Criminal Code . . . or not.’” Barela, 2019-
NMCA-005, ¶ 37 (Vargas, J., dissenting) (omission in original) (emphasis added)
(quoting § 31-18-17(A)). We determine that the sentencing structure is persuasive—as
opposed to where the crime is located within the statutory structure—because
interpretation by location within the statutory structure misrepresents the text of Section
31-18-17(A).
{23} Additionally, the Court of Appeals rested its reasoning on the fact that the felony
DWI statute mentions “jail” instead of “prison,” while the felony battery against a
household member statute makes no such distinction. Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 10.
This observation, however, goes unexplained. As discussed in the Barela dissent, the
Anaya Court did mention use of the word “jail” but did not rely heavily on this detail as a
decisive factor in the Court’s holding. See Barela, 2019-NMCA-005, ¶ 38 (Vargas, J.,
dissenting). We note that all self-enhancing felony provisions of Section 66-8-102(G)-
(K) in the current felony DWI statute, unlike the self-enhancing felony provisions of
Section 66-8-102(G) (1993) on which Anaya relied, use only “imprisonment” and not
“jail.” Cf. footnote 2, paragraph 15, supra. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that
the Habitual Offender Act applies to convictions of felony battery against a household
member. Accordingly, we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals but herein amend
its reasoning.
III. CONCLUSION
{24} Concluding that the Habitual Offender Act is applicable to a defendant convicted
of felony battery against a household member, we affirm the Court of Appeals but
diverge from its reasoning. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant’s enhanced sentence.
{25} IT IS SO ORDERED.
C. SHANNON BACON, Justice
WE CONCUR:
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice
BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice
DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice